Virgin Enterprises Limited v. timtik
Claim Number: FA1510001642007
Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative: Julius E. Stobbs
Complainant Representative: Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Respondent: timtik of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Respondent Representative: Ahmed Aljajeh
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotWebsite Inc.
Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Omar Haydar, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: October 12, 2015
Commencement: October 13, 2015
Default Date: October 28, 2015
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The complaint and findings relate to one domain <virginmobile.website>. There is one Complainant and one (or more) Respondent, and no domain names were dismissed from this complaint.
The Respondent has registered the domain name <virginmobile.website>.
Complainant, Virgin Enterprises Limited, is the owner of trademarks Virgin and Virgin Mobile, which it has registered in various jurisdictions since 1999, including Saudi Arabia, where the Respondent is located. The Complainant has operated as the Virgin brand since 1970.
Complainant has claimed that the domain name in question is identical to their protected word or mark.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended:
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.
2. Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name is identical through evidence of the trademark registration. The Complainant’s trademark is a well established mark, in use for almost twenty years with international use and recognition as a telecom provider.
The Examiner further finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. The Complainant has neither licensed the trademark to the Respondent for use, nor has the Respondent made any claim to a legitimate right or interest to the name, whether by responding to this Complaint or vis-a-vis the content of their website.
The Examiner finds that the evidence proves the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Examiner finds that the following factors when taken together stand as sufficient evidence of bad faith:
- Current use of the website with the indication of it being available for sale
- Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent demanded $100,000 to sell the domain to the Complainant.
- Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent is associated with 106 other domains. While this assertion does not on its face prove bad faith, it is quite evident that many of the Respondent’s other domains are in clear violation of well known international trademarks, which the Examiner has confirmed at the time of the determination by reference to the Respondent’s twitter feed and blog (where Respondent has offered dozens of such domains for sale including amongst others, Hyatt, Ramada, Holiday Inn, Fridays, Chilis, Radisson Blu, Kodak, Moevenpick, Sheraton, ASUS, and Crowne Plaza).
- The domain gives an automatic inference of affiliation to the entity holding the trademark, and would cause confusion amongst internet users into an assumption of an affiliation or relationship. (See Treeforms.com FA0010000095856)
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<virginmobile.website>
Omar Haydar, Examiner
Dated: October 31, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page